Vanicky v. Vanicky
128 Conn. App. 281
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Married August 8, 1998; no minor children.
- Trial court dissolved the marriage and issued a February 4, 2010 decision.
- Plaintiff earned about $47,000/year as a town laborer plus seasonal income; defendant earned about $71,000/year as a teacher.
- Property acquired during the marriage was a gift to the plaintiff from John Goodrich; court found transfer not intended to include defendant.
- Trial court ordered each party retain their own assets and debts; defendant ordered to pay plaintiff $5,000 in attorney's fees; plaintiff to retain sole ownership of the gifted property.
- Defendant appeals contending abuse of discretion on fee award and property allocation; standard of review cited is abuse of discretion if court could not reasonably have so concluded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney’s fees were improperly awarded? | Vanicky argues fee award within discretion. | Vanicky contends no basis for fees given financial disparity not established. | No abuse; discretion within reason. |
| Property award to plaintiff was improper? | Vanicky contends gift to plaintiff justifies sole ownership. | Vanicky argues unequal division required more consideration. | Not an abuse; court validly awarded property to plaintiff. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tuckman v. Tuckman, 127 Conn. App. 417 (2011) (standard of review in domestic relations matters; deference to trial court.)
- Kunajukr v. Kunajukr, 83 Conn. App. 478 (2004) (attorney’s fees may be awarded under § 46b-62/82.)
- Martin v. Martin, 99 Conn. App. 145 (2007) (trial courts have broad power to deal with property division.)
- Puris v. Puris, 30 Conn. App. 443 (1993) (court need not weigh every factor equally; proper consideration suffices.)
- Koizim v. Koizim, 181 Conn. 492 (1980) (financial ability of both parties to pay counsel fees considered.)